Talk:Women in Christianity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in June 2004. Consensus was to keep; view discussion at /Delete.

Attempt to NPOV

I've changed a few things in order to get a more NPOV and more accurate one as well, in particular add that most mainline churches (United Methodist, ELCA, Presbyterian (USA), etc.) do not see gender equality controversial. I've also removed this section from the "Biblical passages supporting gender equality" part:

"Gender distinction never endorses oppression or abuse of authority since in all these texts those in leadership are given mandates to rule with godliness and love. Jesus taught that love is the marker of a real faith in Christ. Love must be subject to Christ's example."

And placed it within the next section, as well as changed the wording so that it is less opinion-based.

Needs lots of citations, NPOV

Someone recently made major changes to this page. While the changes may have some use, they are biased and poorly referenced. I've corrected some of the bias here, but many citations and edits are still needed. Pschelden 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a conversation I recently had with a fellow wikipedian. It's included here because I think such a controversial subject as this article needs to be approached with diligent fairness.

CME: Here's the quoted text I have the biggest problem with in the article, and let me try to explain why:

"The Gospels are unique in presenting women in a variety of situations. Remarkably, in no instance is a woman disgraced, belittled, reproached, or stereotyped. Jesus treats each of them with dignity and respect. This section presents each of the New Testament records of Jesus' interactions with women.[3]. These examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women and show repeatedly how he liberated and affirmed women. [4]"

1) The final statement is not properly cited. I'd like to look for the book you cite, and would, if only the page numbers from which you refer were included. Your claim that the examples "show repeatedly how [Jesus] liberated and affirmed women" is controversial and as such constitutes original research (i.e. personal interpretations). To avoid this, try writing something like, "According to Stagg, . . ." while offering proper, paginated citations to the source. Otherwise, the style of the sentence suggests that Stagg, who may or may not affirm this absolute statement, should be taken at his word, rather than studied and considered for his validity. Also, the absoluteness of the statement as it is written leaves no room for dissenting opinion. This would be fine if the statement was something like "liquid water is wet." But when you're making an overarching claim of a historical figure's various interactions with half the species, suggestions that they "show repeatedly how he liberated and affirmed women" are out of place. Properly, the words "liberated" and "affirmed" should be defined, for one thing. For another, casting such a large net over the situations effectively and rhetorically bars interpretations that would make Stagg's opinion problematic.

2) Your boldest claims are still uncited:

"The Gospels are unique in presenting women in a variety of situations. Remarkably, in no instance is a woman disgraced, belittled, reproached, or stereotyped. Jesus treats each of them with dignity and respect."

The claim to uniqueness is dangerous, and, when taken literally, absurd: it suggests that no other written account features women in a variety of situations. When taken from this perspective, it's obviously, patently, false. Ejaculations like "remarkably" denote encyclopedic statements that must be cited, because they signify something beyond the ordinary (and particularly, something that may not be easily accepted). This is certainly the case here, with the overarching and absolute claim that "in no instance is a woman disgraced, belittled, reproached, or stereotyped." This statement goes beyond the paragraph's citations, and in fact offers no citing texts of its own. Even if it had cited texts, it would be better to put such controversial language in a style as I suggested earlier, "[Theologian X] has written that . . . " This rhetorically leaves available multiple interpretations, which, like it or not, are necessary on a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Please recognize that I've gone to the trouble to explain this to you so that you can incorporate these important principles of neutrality and balance in your own editing, and I've done so partly because I believe you have something to offer the overall project at Wikipedia. Hopefully you can recognize that without proper citations and a neutral, balanced style, editors should not "turn [their] attention to finishing this important section," but should rather take careful consideration of the changes they have made, making sure to annotate, paginate and cite whenever necessary. This is true of any article, but it becomes even more true when dealing with an article of particular controversy, such as "Christian Views About Women." My portion of this discussion will be posted on the discussion page at the article. Pschelden 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While I respect your entitlement to your opinions, and appreciate your explanations of them with examples, I find it impractical and unnecessary to do what you ask. Besides the gargantuan task of placing a citation with page number references on virtually every sentence according to your reasoning, it would tremendously disrupt the flow of reading a paragraph.

The academic standard practice is to maintain coherence by paragraphing. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect one of the first two sentences or the last sentence in a paragraph to contain a citation to the source FOR THAT PARAGRAPH. It would be poor writing to have a potpourri of different sources and opinions within one short paragraph. If one were contrasting two or more opposing views within one paragraph, then I would agree to the need for multiple citations within that paragraph. That was never done in the present article, however. Where you say that there were still uncited claims, that is incorrect. I now see you are assuming each and every sentence needs a citation, which isn't called for by any style manual. Once an author is cited, academic integrity requires that everything around that citation be from that citation—until further notice is given.

I had given up on this article after your first round of so many notations and rewrites that threw out a lot of text. I sensed great frustration in CME_GBM's notes in discussion, and was concerned that we might end up with oblivion of this material. After a great deal of thought (and prayer), it occurred to me that simplifying things down to one source for all those paragraphs should meet your objections, and make it both possible and practical to show that there is NO editor opinion or bias in that section, only expert opinion from this one book, which is a great source. Thanks for the dialog and challenges. I sincerely hope this newest approach meets with your approval, for I am unable to spend any more time debating the issue and trying to rewrite for your approval. Respectfully, Afaprof01 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Afra: Your edits certainly improve the article, making the source more clear than it had been. Especially helpful are the stripped-down, bare-facts instances of Jesus' interactions with women and the reference to Dr. Stagg's credentials (which I couldn't find on my own). At the same time, the language of the section still needs some work. Please don't be frustrated--a project like Wikipedia is expected to experience multiple, possibly unending revisions as it comes closer (hopefully) to conformance with standards and policy.

I still believe that statements like "Remarkably, in no instance is a woman disgraced, belittled, reproached, or stereotyped. Jesus treats each of them with dignity and respect" need direct citations because they make wholesale claims about very broad and controversial subjects. The re-write of the section's heading is an improvement, in that it makes its source material clear, which I think is excellent, but it's important to refrain from self-reference in an encyclopedia article, and references to the "impractical demands by an editor-reviewer" are neither here nor there in terms of the actual subject, "Christian Views About Women." Pschelden 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible merger of Christian feminism into this article

There is considerable duplication between this article and Christian feminism and this article: [[Christian views of about women]]. With the term Christian egalitarianism gaining more positive acceptance, particularly in the Christian community, than a phrase containing "feminism," I propose a merger of this article Christian feminism into the [[Christian views of about women]] article. Comments please. CME GBM 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think Christian views of women simply redirects to Christian views about women. I don't think they're two separate articles. Pschelden 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. What I intended to suggest is a merger of Christian feminism into Christian views about women. Sorry for the unintended ambiguity. (Whew! it must have been late at night when I did that!) And yes, the "Christian views of" article simply redirects to the "Christian views about" article.CME GBM 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. Pschelden 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I believe that alot of this could be merged into Christian feminism, but this article should give discuss to all the views. And not as it seems now, discuss only one point of view for the most point and a couple side notes. Also, Christian feminism is probably different then egalitarianism in some cases. (KVD) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.97.9.163 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Cleanup

I've tagged the section about "Jesus and woman", it really reads like an essay on the subject, and an essay based on one source at that. The whole article needs some help; to be honest even the talk page, with its large chunks of bible verses, is quite hard to approach. It's clearly an emotive subject (and one that I know nothing about), but if anyone has the time to even start fixing this, it would be great. Inner Earth 19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and concerns. You have stated the problem well. I added the "Jesus and woman" section. As you can see from the notes, a User initially wanted a citation with page number on EACH AND EVERY SENTENCE, a real impossibility. Initially I followed the Dissertation rule of limiting discussion in a paragraph to one source, and citing that source either at the beginning or end of that paragraph. Therefore, everything in that paragraph goes back to that source, unless otherwise stated. That didn't fly with the User. Next, I took out all references except from the Staggs, clearly my main reference, and put in the Editor Note hoping to cover the subsections and prevent having to put the very same citation (book) on multiple sentences in each paragraph. The objecting editor added the "According to the Staggs" all through the section, which to me is redundant. Next, the objecting editor MOVED the whole article and lost the History section by moving it back. IT HAS BEEN A NIGHTMARE, and I'd greatly appreciate your help and suggestions. This is a very important article that I do know quite a bit about, though it's not my gender, and I'd like to see it well done. CME GBM 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to all about mistakenly moving the article to "[Frank Stagg]." It was the first time I had created an article from another article, and in the process I screwed up. But I did my best to correct what I could.

I think what's most important for the article at this point is either A) a dry, unopinionated account of all of Jesus' interactions with women according to the New Testament (or any other historical sources, if there are any), or if that's not possible for some reason, B) an attempt at objectivity via a balancing counter-position. Frank and Evelyn Stagg may be great people, and they may have done great scholarship, but their writing, as represented in this article, shows only a single perspective on an extremely multi-faceted topic. So what should we do? Cut it to the dry bones, or find some counter-points? Pschelden 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The "problem" is that there is no credible difference of opinion about Jesus' treatment of women. All "sides" would agree that he treated women with respect and dignity. Therefore, no one holds up any manner, example, or treatment of women as a reason to require hierarchy in marriage, in the church, or in society, or to treat women as second-class citizens in any way. It's mainly the writings of the Apostle Paul, and to a lesser extent Peter, where the problem hits. If all we had were the gospels, there would be no argument.

Egalitarian Christians maintain that Jesus, as Founder of Christianity, is the only One who had the authority to require a hierarchy of males superior and females inferior or required to subordinate themselves to male leadership--but he didn't do that. Five times in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5) he said, "You have heard it said of old (referring to Old Testament teachings) that.... But I say to you...." These are clear examples of him reinterpreting O.T. law. And he was the only One with the authority to do that reinterpretation. There are literally a handful of places in only a few of the Pauline and Petrine writings where the N.T. appears to prescribe male priority on Christian grounds. Complementarians maintain that these very few and in many ways unclear passages require the church--and husbands and wives--to practice male priority and female submission. THAT'S where there is fierce debate, strong counterpositions. But the relevant passages about Jesus and women have no different perspectives, and that's not where the multifacets come in, unless one wants to argue extrabiblically that Jesus was wrong, or didn't "get it," or was misquoted by the writers, or says we just should not care about what Jesus taught or did. That's so preposterous that in many years studying this issue, I've never come across even one example of it. So why give so much room to Jesus' teachings and example? Ultimately that trumps everything else. But people whose mindset or paradigm is to subordinate women basically ignore Jesus' teachings and example, instead of trying to understand (interpret) those writings of Peter and Paul in light of Jesus.

Since the Complementarians are only quoting Paul and Peter as authorities for their interpretations that put women in inferior and disadvantaged positions, THAT'S where we will need what you wish for, by way of balance, counterpoints and citations. We really need to get to that very soon, before those sections get thrown out of this article for lack of almost any citations. PLEASE leave Jesus and Women alone, unless you see something obviously a typo or other mechanical error. And PLEASE give the article and the rest of us the benefit of your fine skills in documentation. By the way, I have years and years of research on those other positions. I believed it necessary to lay the foundation from a sincere Christian perspective--the perspective held by the Founder. Without that, we become Paulinists or Petrinists, instead of Christians. Thanks sincerely, Afaprof01 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the other possibility? Just stripping away all the extra commentary and leaving a dry account of Jesus' interactions with women, as per the Bible and possibly any other historical documents? This would be my favorite option. As far as finding opposing positions, it's not as hard as you suggest. I found about 30 searching through a university database, and ordered a few to peruse. Pschelden 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Since this section has been changed back and forth a few times now, I thought it might help to bring it onto the Talk Page to discuss our respective problems with one-another's revisions. Here's the version I don't like:

Luke 13:10–17 illustrates what Jesus more than any other has done for woman. He saw woman bent over and unable to stand erect. He freed her from her infirmity, enabling her to stand up straight. Beyond the miracle of physical restoration, Jesus enabled woman to stand up with a proper sense of dignity, freedom, and worth. It is striking that Jesus referred to this woman as "a daughter of Abraham" (v. 16). Elsewhere in the New Testament we hear of "children of Abraham" (Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, John 8:39), "seed of Abraham" (John 8:33; Romans 9:7, Romans 11:1; Galatians 3:29) and "sons of Abraham" {John 8:33; Romans 9:7, Romans 11:1; Galatians 3:29). This is the only place in the New Testament that we hear of "a daughter of Abraham." Jesus spoke of her as though she belonged to the family of Abraham just as much as did the sons of Abraham. To the dismay of the religious leaders, he healed her on the Sabbath day, giving her priority over the laws of the Sabbath and over his own security. To Jesus, the person, whether God or a human being, always was took priority over things and even religion itself. A woman was a person, that first. Jesus the "Liberator" said to this crippled woman, "Woman, you are released from your infirmity!" (v. 12).

Most of the language here fails to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. For instance, the first word, "illustrates," shouldn't be included, as one ought to stick with variations of the verb "said," or "wrote," rather than potentially value-laden terms such as "illustrates." This is standard journalistic practice. It makes the tone of the article more neutral. A bold claim like this: "illustrates what Jesus more than any other has done for woman" has no place in an encyclopedia article. At best, such a sentiment could be recorded by including a direct reference to an outside source, but the more I look at this, the less I believe that's useful or necessary.

There is no reason to include the overly long phrase "He freed her from her infirmity, enabling her to stand up straight." All this passage needs are the simple facts: "He healed her, and she could stand." Or something equally simple. Likewise, a phrase like Jesus enabled woman "to stand up with a proper sense of dignity, freedom, and worth" have no correlate in the actual words of the Bible. That means the claim is pure speculation (No matter how authoritative the speculator). If this stands, it contradicts the Neutral Point of View policy.

I see some use for a simple inclusion of the phrase "daughter of Abraham" with a short, simple explanation of its possible significance. But beyond that, a link should be created to an article on the subject, because a segment this long detracts from the central issue of this article.

Here's the version I changed it to, which apparently others don't like:

Luke 13:10–17 says Jesus saw a physically disabled woman who was unable to stand erect, and healed her, saying, "Woman, you are released from your infirmity!"Luke 13:10–17.

Stagg interprets this act of physical healing as a self-esteem builder as well for the woman.

I tried to maintain as much of the original's sentiment as I possibly could while remaining within the style guidelines. At this point, I would strike the phrases about Stagg's interpretation (as they do not conform to the neutrality standard), and simply leave the facts of the citation. This should be a simple, neutral recounting of the circumstances--something like,

"As Jesus preached in a synagogue on the Sabbath, a crippled woman met him. He healed her so that she could stand up straight. The synagogue leader condemned the act for occurring on the Sabbath. Jesus rebuked the leader, calling him a hypocrite."

What are your thoughts? Pschelden 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this article, but find it very interesting. This is a major issue in Christianity, and am so glad so many have thought it worthwhile to contribute to it. I can see that it needs cleanup and citations. I ask more people to give some time to help with this article. I cannot imagine it was ever a thought to eliminate it! Concerning reverts, it looks to me that User:Pschelden is very skilled at picking up certain subtleties. However, when the whole article is about to sink without a trace, I recommend spending more effort on getting the rest of the article at least as far as the Jesus/Women section has come. User:Afaprof01 has a good "pulse" on the real issues, and too much of her/his work has been removed. I agree that this user needs to write more succinctly and avoid POV sounds and write more encyclopedic. As to the citations, I think they are there. If so many sentences had the same citation on them, as a user I would have been frustrated. One citation per pargraph is sufficient, unless the source changes. Why should we be so OVERcritical on this section of this article, when so much of the remainder of the article has no sources at all?

Regarding merge from feminism. I see the duplication, but there's a "tone" to that article that I wouldn't want to see/hear in this one. If the merge proceeds, please make sure it doesn't negatively color this one. I don't like the term, and it raises a red flag with the majority of people today (in my opinion).Thank you. Oberlin 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene and Hem of Garment Woman

And the "new, improved" material is supposed to help promote positive pictures of women and Jesus HOW??? Bringing up the Mary Magdalene speculation is inflammatory at best, given the recent flaps over Brown's book and DaVinci Code. Why are you doing this? Do you feel a real need to interject a liberal flavor? I strongly object to extrabiblical speculation, etc., in such a section as this. Afaprof01 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The task of "promot[ing] positive pictures of women and Jesus" runs absolutely counter to Wikipedia's key policy number five, which is to maintain a nonbiased, neutral point of view. As for your objection to "extrabiblical speculation," your information from the Staggs is exactly that, and is, incidently, exactly what is expected of a Wikipedia entry. Take a closer look at Wikipedia's policy on religious topics as per NPOV. I'll include the whole section here because I think it's extremely relevant to this topic:

"Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?

"NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

"Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

So, as you can see, including the information that I chose, i.e., "modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources," are specifically condoned by WP's oldest policy. As far as "injecting a liberal flavor," I'm for injecting all possible flavors into an article as rich and diverse as the one we're currently involved with. That's the only way to maintain NPOV and offer the best possible information to the public. Pschelden 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Psalm 5:11-12

(11) But let all who take refuge in you be glad; let them ever sing for joy. Spread your protection over them, that those who love your name may rejoice in you. (12) For surely, O LORD, you bless the righteous; you surround them with your favor as with a shield.

Nothing in there about a "mother hen with wide, safe wings outstretched for her young".

Perhaps another version?

(11) But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. (12) For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield.

Still nothing.

(11) But let all who take refuge in You be glad, Let them ever sing for joy; And may You shelter them, That those who love Your name may exult in You. (12) For it is You who blesses the righteous man, O LORD, You surround him with favor as with a shield.

Shields, not wings. Clutching at straws, methinks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.193.234 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Man was created in Gods' image, woman was not

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him...."Genesis 1:27 As is apparent from the text it was man who was created in Gods' image not, they, she or them. Subsequent to God making man in his image he created them male and female. If this is insufficient lets look at another scripture. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God..."1 Corinthians 11:7 As is apparent again it is HE not, she, they her or them. Now, you can fight it all you want but that is the scripture. Women are not equal. Man was created in Gods' image and not mankind. This should be posted on the article page but I am not going to play edit games with silly women who resent being in subjection in a patriarchal society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is a pathetic commentary. No wonder it was left unsigned. It a pathetic commentary showing very sad gender prejudice, regrettably with an attempt to justify it on biblical grounds. Genesis 1:27 (KJV) in its entirety reads: "So God created man [anthropos...humanity] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

You are an absolute fool. Why would you quote me a greek word "anthropos" for a hebrew text...??? Sheesh, you have just blown your credibility as a biblical exeget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Gender prejudice? Call it what you like. I am just stating the biblical facts. If you can't handle the word then choke on it.

The meaning of the "headcovering" portion early in 1 Cor. 11 and "because of the angels" has been debated for many centuries, and cannot be resolved here. However, only a few verses later, the writer, Paul, wonderfully and unequivocally states in verses 11-12: "However, IN THE LORD, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God." Isn't it wonderful that "IN THE LORD," neither men nor women are independent of each other" 1Cor 11:11–12. As the first female originated from the first male, according to Genesis, ever since then, without exception, every male has originated from a female. We ALL came from mothers, and the last time I checked, all mothers were women!

tisk, tisk, tisk, you do err, not knowing the scripture. You stated "without exception". Have you never read about Melchisedec..???

Each of us is either IN CHRIST and IN THE LORD, or IN something or someone else. IN CHRIST there is neither male nor female, for all are "made one" in Jesus (Gal. 3:28). Yes, "in the world" there is tremendous discrimination of gender, race, class, and a host of other distinctions based on secondary characteristics. But praise God, Jesus did away with all of that through his redemptive work on the Cross. JESUS LOVES YOU, more than any of us can fathom until we reach Eternity.Oberlin 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the same Paul who wrote Galatians 3:28 who wrote of gender distinction in many other epistles. Now, either Paul was a schizophrenic or you cannot reconcile what seems to be opposing scripture. I am of the opinion that Paul was quite sane.

This rebuttal from oberlin I submit as exibit "A" as to how Satan uses women to pervert scripture. And why man alone is the interpreter and expositor of scripture.

The first sin Adam commited

"....Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife....." Genesis 3:17 The first sin Adam commited was not that he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but that he listened to his wife. Satan, though Eve perverted the word of God and caused Adam to sin.

Satan uses women to this day

Afapro01 is citing the greek word "anthropos" to explain a hebrew text and attempting to neutralize the meaning of the scripture...??? ROFL...!!! The Hebrew word for man in Genesis 1:26 is aw-dawn or adam and not "anthropos"...Rofl, I cannot stop laughing. Futhermore, Afapro01 is using the Living Translation or NLT to exposit scripture. These two translations are paraphrases and not word for word translations. The editors of the NLT deliberately attempted to make the NLT gender neutral without regard to the original greek, hebrew, or aramaic meaning of the words. http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html I submit Afapro01 as exhibit "b" as to why women are not to interpret nor exposit scripture and should sit down and keep silent.

The entire section about Jesus interactions with women needs to be removed

by [Anonymous] 18 September 2007 This entire section needs to be deleted because its' sole source of information is from Skaggs. Hand picked by the editor to direct the reader to a particular point of view. Let this be moved to an article concerning the skaggs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire section about Jesus interactions with women needs to stay

The attitudes and examples of Jesus are extremely important. Who could better demonstrate and teach what the CHRISTian attitudes toward women SHOULD be than the record of Jesus' interactions with women? At the time of Christ, a rabbi would not even recognize a woman in public – not even his own wife. One of the blessings assigned to men in the synagogue service said, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast not made me a woman." In Hebrew law at the time of Christ, women were not considered competent witnesses, either in civil or criminal cases. And there is much more. Christians are part of the church Jesus founded, and which, from the first, has struggled to understand him and to follow him. Jesus' desire to preserve the intention of the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament) is clear in Matthew 5:17–20. Jesus' intention to correct his heritage is also explicit in the "six antitheses" of Matthew 5:21–48 – "You have heard it said...but I say to you...." The attitudes and examples of Jesus are the model for Christian Views about Woman. Afaprof01 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I suppose I will need to take the time to clean up all the erroneous exposition and garbage that is attached to it. Had it only cited the text or the basic facts it would be acceptable but the exposition needs to go....and go it shall... :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How come you stay anonymous? It's cowardly for you to be SO negative and critical, and come across like you have all the answers, but don't even register with Wikipedia? I just looked at the history, and read your additions and changes to the article. They are anything BUT scholarly, and don't even follow rules of common grammar. Look at the extended history of this article. It's been in development for years! MANY people have contributed, and most of them seem to have tried their best. They were willing to truly research the issues and cite their sources. If you object to an approach, you should find a credible and noteworthy source, and present it as another view and leave what's there alone. This article is designed to present the two main approaches: Complementarian and Egalitarian. They are very different from each other, and that's OK. But their editors don't rudely criticize others' efforts as being "erroneous exposition and garbage." Your comments in Discussion are very negative, critical, sound angry, and shallow. What ever happened to tact and kindness? What does it profit you if you somehow got all your interpretations correct, but lost your readers (or congregation) in the process by being so rude? CME GBM 03:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What is you issue with being anonymous baby? I looked at your personal page and I ascertained no more information about you than you can of me. Add your name address and phone number to your page then preach me your sermon, hypocrite. Scholarly? It takes a scholar to determine what is scholarly. Are you a scholar :-) Present another view? That's the problem baby, there is to be no point of view..sheesh..??? You question the tone of my comments? ROFL...! Baby, if you want to be touched turn on your t.v. and watch Joel Osteen. Losing my readers or congregation. When your pastors congregation burns up like wood, hay, and stubble on that day. The one stone of gold, silver, precious stones that I lay will remain. That is how I will profit :-) I've already discerned what type of teachers you get your milk from. Now, sit down, listen, and learn. I teach, you listen. It is a one way street :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you just be honest ?

When I study a passage of scripture I always do with the attitude. What is the author saying? What is the thought that the author is trying to convey and how do I apply that to myself and to the 21st century church? Is the application specific to the circumstances or does it have a more universal application. This is known as the inductive study method of interpreting scripture. There are others however who "mine" the scriptures for supporting text for their point of view. Trying to bend the scriptures to conform to a western 20th century mind set is another type of syncretism which the church has been fighting against since Christ began his public ministry. If you are going to understand scripture you must shed all of the "programming" you have received since birth and develop an eastern mind set and interpret the scriptures from a perspective wherein they were written and received. The vast vast majority of christians fail to do this.

Now, regarding Phoebe and her deaconate. If the context of Romans 16:1-2 implied or rather strongly implied or rather conclusively proved that Phoebe held the "office" of a deacon or deaconess then I would be the first to add it to my list of dogmas (which is very few in number). Albeit, although it is not conclusive I do at this time in the development of my theology believe that Phoebe may have held the "office" of a deacon. However, I must also consider not only the immediate context of Romans 16:1-2 but, within the entire context of the New Testament and in particular the requirements Paul set forth to Timothy for those who would be appointed to the "office" of a deacon.

Regarding the word: "prostatis" strongs # 4368. Although the strongs definition is a)A woman set over others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

HONEST? So now anybody that you don't agree with is not honest and therefore you imply they are lying? In case you haven't noticed, this article has two sections for two opposing view of this very emotional but important topic: # 7 Biblical interpretations supporting equality for men and women, and # 8 Biblical interpretations supporting unequal roles for women and men. That's very honest! CME GBM 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You probably don't have the competence to understand what has been going on here. This entire article is nothing more than a "playground" for feminist point of view. Frankly, the entire article should be removed.

1) An editor has used the New Living Translation which was written to be gender neutral to cite scripture. 2) An editor quoted me the greek word anthropos for a hebrew text where the hebrew word is ad-dawn or adam. 3) An editor is deliberately using only one interpretation for the greek word "prostatis" to impress upon the reader that Phoebe was a "leader" and also a leader of Paul. 4) An editor is citing only one hand selected source for the entire section concerning Jesus interaction with women. And, giving copious amounts of pov exposition.

Kick and scream all you want baby but I do have all the answers :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a real first: an editor who claims to have "all the answers." I think the mental health profession labels that "delusions of grandeur." There is not one single citation in this article that references the New Living Translation. Perhaps this editor also sees things that aren't there. Sorry, I foolishly thought there was rationality and sincerity in the above expressions of concern, but I was terribly wrong. I choose not to respond any further to User:75.132.95.79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CME GBM (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You chose wisely. It will save yourself from any further humiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey CME_GBM, I just took a look at your talk page...ROFL....!!! Anyone following this drama take a look at this then you decide... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CME_GBM Oh my gosh ! I can't stop laughing ...!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are being uncivil, anon. Knock it off. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As of Sept. 21,07 @ 10:48 pm. cst this article is vastly more neutral

It has amazed me how some editors will scratch and claw in the dirt to find the most "scant" evidence to pervert the simplicity of the biblical text. This article was and to a great extent yet is, totally corrupted by feminists wishing to hoist their point of view upon the readers of this article. Back, back, back where you belong. A man of God is here and the game is over. Now, sit down at the rabbis feet. Keep silent, listen and learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not encouraged by the arrogance inherent in your comment there. Wikipedia is a collective effort, and we are to work together. You do not get to own the article because you say you are more godly than the editors who have previously edited here. Neutrality (particularly in religion articles such as this one) is not presenting the "correct" point of view, but in showing all significant ones, so that readers can see multiple sides of the issues. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrogant?..yes, and justifiably so. Is that a criteria for censoring an editor? Regarding "ownership of the article." I suggest you remind a few of the other editors who want to control the article and suppress anything contrary there to. I was not the one who requested a lock on the article. Neither did i change multiple multiple edits with one key stroke and without explanation. Regarding "more godly" Did I say that? No, I stated my credentials as "a man of God" I agree that not necessarily the correct view but multiple sides need to be addressed but, the facts which has been the majority of my edits must be true. If these criteria are met then the truth will emerge and be presented......CLICK --A B Pepper 09:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

A few days ago I tagged this article questioning its' neutrality. Today however in its' current composition I am moving towards removing the neutrality tag. It is disappointing however how the entire article is dedicated to the polarizing subject of womens authority vs. womens subjugation. There is so much about christian women that can be spoken about in between the two positions. For example. A few days ago I was in my back yard reading while my seven year old son was at play on the swing. Two women from church came walking through my yard toward me and greeted me. "Hello Mr. Pepper" They said. They came looking for my son Nicholas. They had a bag with them decorated, with candy, little toys and sunday school lessons inside. I listened to them talking about how they missed Nick But, what they didn't probably realize is that I was in aww of the beauty of God that was upon them. How beautiful were these godly women who were looking for the little sheep that had not been to sunday school lately. We spoke for a few minutes and when Nick had looked inside his bag they had prepared he told them thank you and at that time they were preparing to depart. As I watched them walk away my heart could not keep from worshiping God. In fact, there are many women I have seen when I peek into a sunday school class or go to the nursing home ministry and see the handmaids of the Lord ministering to the old people that I feel nothing short of veneration for these women. But alas, there are those among us who want to be heard ! They want to be seen and have the preeminence. They demand a platform, a congregation and the opportunity to influence the thoughts of others. How hideous is it that some such as Joyce Meyer act more like a circus side show barker than how the scriptures portray a woman of God. I wonder what would have happened to poor little Timothy if his mother and grandmother were too busy trying to fight their way to the bishopric of the church at Lystra to spend time with him teaching him the scriptures?

"And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness." 1 cor. 12:23

{{editprotected}}

Dear editor, could you please add the following information at the end of the paragraph discussing junia which is located here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_about_women#Biblical_interpretations_supporting_equality_for_men_and_women This is an important guestion as to establishing whether there was ever a woman apostle named in the biblical text and was deleted by an editor without explanation. Thank you.

The phrase "noteworthy among the apostles" has its' variants in interpretation as well. Does the phrase mean a) He/She was indeed an apostle or b) that the service rendered to the gospel was "well known" among the apostles. [1]

As long as this page is protected, it isn't appropriate for admins to add content like this. Please discuss the issues with other editors and find consensus to have the page unprotected. Then you will be able to edit the article normally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What to fix?

Seeing a request to look into this article on the WikiProject Christianity talk page, I've decided to see what I can do to contribute here. After looking at the article and some of the more recent talk page comments, I have a few suggestions on what we should do once the article is available for editing again.

1. Christian views about women#Some characteristics of a Godly woman This section should probably go. It's not very NPOV. A section on "Christian expectations of women" might be more acceptable as a section looking at what is expected under some of the major traditions.

I will have to disagree with you on this. The foundation for any christian view about women is going to be the sriptures themselves and the scriptures are either going to give us specific characteristics or they will have to be extracted from the charaters within the scriptures themselves. "What would be expected of women" would be a secondary or third source that should but not always may, draw from the foundation source. Regarding "not very npov" You will note, there is no exposition added this is the "raw" text. The heading is open for anyone to add additional scriptures or reliable third party sources. --A B Pepper 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article's subject is "Christian views about women," not "Biblical views of women." You are adding POV by bolding sections of the text, as well. The article's focus should be on how the text has been used and interpreted by Christians in regard to women's roles, not the text itself. A section on some of the modern movements to define a "Godly woman" would be quite acceptable, but attempting to define that here is not. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Was Paul a christian? Did Paul have a view about christian women? Was Peter a Christian? Did Peter have views about christian women? I have to conclude the your of the opinion that as long as the view is not from the first century then it may be included. Remember, the new testament is just a collection of letter written by christians in the first century. Your position regarding the matter is preposterous....CLICK......--A B Pepper 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We already are examining views from the first century in the Christian views about women#Women's roles in the early Christian Church section. That section is much more in line with a good encyclopedia article, and should be expanded upon. As I've stated before: This is not a Bible study. Quoting large amounts of source text is simply not appropriate. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Christian views about women#Women's influence in the home also should probably be cut. It doesn't really explain anything relevant to this article, and seems not very NPOV.

Regarding "not very NPOV" Again, citing of the factual accounts of two women who were members of the new testament church who raised a / the successor to the Apostle Paul, again, the foundational example of two godly women. Furthermore, the writer of acts himself deemed it pertinent to add it to the text. These women are examples of godly women and as I stated before, where the text is not specific about such "Characteristics" they must be extracted from the examples in the narrative.--A B Pepper 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a bible study: it's an encyclopedia article. The subject is "Christian views about women," not every woman in the New Testament. No connection is made to how this explains the article subject, nor is the source reliable by Wikipedia standards. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Christian views about women#Jesus' interactions with women could stand to be trimmed back a lot. Several of the sub-sections, such as Christian views about women#Peter's mother-in-law, only bloat the article. It should focus on significant interactions that indicative of Christian viewpoints, and even many of those need to be reworked for improved NPOV.
2. It's not a huge deal, but I don't generally prefer the King James Version for this kind of thing, as it's not widely used these days outside of very conservative groups. The New Revised Standard Version is a good one generally accepted among scholars and a number of major denominations. Contrary to the anon's claims above, the New Living Translation is perfectly acceptable, and is not a paraphrase (I believe anon is confusing NLT with The Living Bible). Of course, what anon actually seems to have mistaken for NLT was the TNIV Today's New International Version, which is also acceptable. Whether or not the translation uses "gender neutral" language has little bearing on what version is used, though.

Hopefully some direction for which way the article should go can be decided upon while it's protected. What is everyone else's opinion on the suggestions? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider the version or translation a big criteria I use several myself. But I do love the poetic style of the King Jimmy. I do take exception to the NLT and TNIV. With regard to gender neutral and the fact that were are discussing an issued specifically about gender is certainly an issue if it alters the text in such away as to alter the interpretation. --A B Pepper 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Below is a comparison of one verse from the first Chapter in Genesis which will demonstrate how striking an alteration the rendering of the NLT makes to the text.

"God created man (adawn) in his own image, in the image of God he created him (zakar); male and female he created them" Gen. 1:27 nasb

" So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Gen. 1:27 NLT /TNIV

Herein is demonstrated how in the first book of the bible two hebrew words were mistranslated by the NLT / TNIV and alter the rendering of the text. I rest my case....CLICK --A B Pepper 08:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The NLT/TNIV version seems acceptable to me. They probably used the Septuagint to determine if the Hebrew was generally interpreted as "man" or "human beings" in the early church. Since it uses "ανθρωπον," that's probably what Afapro01 was referring to previously [2]. That's beside the point at the moment, though. NRSV is probably the most widely accepted translation from a scholarly standpoint, so I recommend we use that one, but sparingly, as quoting large amounts of scripture is not the purpose of this article. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you let afaprof01 speak for herself. I think the little woman can defend herself and doesn't need macho man to come to her rescue. If she does need protection then let her get back underneath the covering of her husband.....CLICK....--A B Pepper 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was simply responding to your comments, as you apparently were not aware of how the Septuagint is sometimes used in Biblical exegesis and translation. If you were thinking about my early responses on this page to some of your comments made anonymously, I will defend any of my fellow editors from incivility if I feel it is necessary. Attempting to mock me will change nothing, except to dig yourself deeper into a hole, so I suggest you rethink that strategy. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the septuagint rending. I was giving afaprof01 the opportunity to offer this explanation it was her only way out of the humiliating mistake. But, knowing that another editor made the identical mistake I rightly concluded that they both were citing the same source and did not arrive at this rebuttal through their own research. It amazes me how you seem to misconstrue everything anyone has to say. Just take a look below as an example. Jacob Haller said nothing about citing scripture his comment was to the interpretation of scripture. You however "definitely agree we should avoid heavily quoting scripture" Frankly, as clever as you think you may be it is hard for me to take you seriously...Welcome to my dominion of humiliation.....CLICK....--A B Pepper 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to the article. I'm taking it to user talk. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The intro needs referencing, to sift out the errors (e.g. the claim that "only since the 1970s have more diverse views emerged.")
• The history section should cover history. Per WP:NOR, it should not interpret scripture, though it can describe interpretations of scripture, e.g. by the church fathers.
• The early Christian church section should be a subsection in the history section and could be expanded, and followed with sections on women's roles in the church in Late Antiquity and in the Medieval church. Jacob Haller 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like good ideas. I definitely agree we should avoid heavily quoting scripture, as the article does now. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

An historically male dominated ministry

An historically male dominated ministry in the church has always been the cutting of the church lawn and very few women have ever been able to gain a foot hold in this ministry. It is time sisters to demand the keys to the lawn tractor and show the men how good a job you could do if they would only allow it. Your God given rights and gifts according to the scriptures where there is neither male or female has been denied long enough !....--A B Pepper 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a section about lesbians and lesbians in the ministry

Certain mainline denominations have ordained women and many of which are lesibians. This needs its' own heading and I will begin gathering reliable resources to represent it....--A B Pepper 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you think you are making a point, or trying to draw out opponents in some way. I would recommend against following through on it, if that is your plan, as disrupting Wikipedia in an attempt to make a point is a bad idea. Sexual issues such as lesbianism would not fit within the scope of this article anyway. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you one time. Take your recommendations somewhere else. I have read all of your comments directed to me on this page and the absurd attempts to discredit any contribution I made on the article page. But this is fine, that is to be expected at times. But when I consider the peculiar and perverse reasons you give in an attempt to refute what I post I cannot imagine any rational person making those comments. Now, I don't take issue with your intelligence, it is your grasp with regard to the context of what I and other people are posting. It is somehow as though your brain has been rewired. Like an internet connection that is constantly losing data packets. Needless to say and I will not say it again. Your opinions expressed are nothing more than pseudo-intellectual jibberish. Now move on.....CLICK....--A B Pepper 05:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It all comes from policy Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To the relief of many of you and particularly afaprof01 who went into hiding when this article came up for deletion, I think I will be moving on to other more pertinent areas in my life. I may make an editor here or there or I may not. Frankly, I have become bored with the subject and the format. afaprof01, I give you back your article. I know it is the only outlet for you to vent your frustration. I suppose maybe even your husband doesn't listen to you??? With regard to Wikipedia it is a very unusual format. To some extent entertaining. But, Wikipedia has no enduring substance. I have been working on a commentary for 8 months on the pastoral epistles and when published it will not be corrupted, edited or perverted by editors but will remain a legacy of my doctrine and theology. I have enjoyed the last few weeks but have been disappointed that no competent opponent apparent had surfaced. I leave with this final query. Is an encyclopedia to be based on facts, yes, or no? I exhort you to take a look at the content of the heading just above that x-whatever cited as being better two weeks ago. Under one heading were ten, no less than ten factual errors. Absolutley verifiably factually erroneous. Is that what Wikipedia is meant to be? ......CLICK....--A B Pepper 23:26, 26 September 2007 (U

a DO NOT DELETE vote

I think that this is an informative and thorough page. The disputes here seem to be more about overarching cultural issues resulting from hellenistic society than about getting at the root of biblical teaching. Although this phenomenon applies here, it is better suited for a few other, independent pages, perhaps something that deals with inaccuracies in translation arising from cultural views driving misinterpretation (which clearly applies here if you research it), hermeneutics, exegesis, hellenism and the greek/philisophic views of women of the time, etc. Personally, I think that if this author wanted to be one-sided, he could have been, because he clearly has done his homework and could have stated a lot more... This page appears to be an attempt at an overview and touches upon all of these issues. If you don't think that it's detailed enough, add some links and move on!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.195.19.41 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 September 2007